G.R. No. L-11425; August 2, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NGAN PING, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, Ngan Ping, a seventeen-year-old Chinese boy, was charged with the illegal possession of cocaine, a violation of the Opium Law. The complaint alleged that on or about August 12, 1915, in Manila, he willfully and unlawfully had in his possession forty centigrams of cocaine. At the time, the defendant was employed as a helper in a tienda (store) owned by his father, uncle, and brother, in which he had no proprietary interest. The evidence showed that around 1:00 p.m. on said date, Samuel Stokes, an employee of a saloon who was acting as a spy, entered the tienda and left a small package with the defendant, stating he would call for it later. The defendant placed the package on a shelf near the clock, in plain view. Later, between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m., Stokes returned with policeman Henry Rusland and asked for the package. The defendant retrieved it and offered to deliver it to Stokes, who instructed him to give it to Rusland instead. The package was seized and found to contain cocaine. The trial court convicted the defendant and sentenced him to three months imprisonment and a fine of P300.

ISSUE:
Whether the facts adduced during the trial are sufficient to prove that the defendant is guilty of the crime of illegal possession of cocaine.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and acquitted the defendant. The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt. There was no proof that the defendant knew the contents of the package delivered to him by Stokes, nor that he attempted to ascertain its contents. The package was left openly on a shelf, indicating no attempt at concealment. Furthermore, there was no proof of any intent on the part of the defendant to violate the Opium Law. His act of merely receiving and holding the package for a customer, without knowledge of its illicit contents, did not constitute the criminal possession contemplated by law. The complaint was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered discharged. No costs were awarded.